Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 7 & 11 of FTDR 1992 prohibit import or export without Importer-Exporter Code Number or by any person against the provisions of FTDR Act 1992. In the instant case forged documents were submitted to Karnataka Bank to get accounts opened in the name of M/s Neeru Trading Co. & other fictitious firms. Apart from this, forged signatures of Shri Naveen Kumar & others who had been projected as the proprietors of various fictitious companies by Shri Vineet Gupta had been appended on various documents submitted on behalf of M/s Neeru Trading Co. & others by Shri Vineet Gupta only. It was on the basis of wrong information submitted to DGFT that Shri Vineet Gupta got successful in getting an IEC Code in the name of fictitious companies. The above referred IEC Numbers thus could not have any legal sanctity in the eyes of law having been obtained by practicing fraud on the government and are such as if there is no IEC with the importing firm. The acts/omissions mentioned in Customs Appeal No. 2253 of 2012 Section 7 & 11 would, therefore, operate as prohibitions contained in the statute and the goods imported in the name of fictitious firms holding fake / fraudulently obtained IEC Numbers became prohibited under Section 2 (33) of Customs Act, 1962. Further even if the goods were not available for confiscation, the liability for confiscation should have been adjudged under Section 111(d).

Customs Appeal No. 2253 of 2012 15.8 We also observe that the provisions of Section 7 and 11 of FTDR, 1992 prohibit import or export without Importer-Exporter Code Number or by any person against the provisions of FTDR Act, 1992. The acts/omissions mentioned in Section 7 and 11 would, therefore, operate as prohibitions contained in the statue. Therefore, the goods imported in the name of fictitious firms holding fake/fraudulently obtained IEC numbers are prohibited under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods being prohibited were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. But the adjudicating authority below has held that at the time of detection of fraud relating IEC, the goods were not physically available for the detention/seizure/confiscation etc. and the goods were not tainted with violation of import policy nor were there any allegations of mis-declaration description/value/quantity.